resolveBug

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('提交' meaning submit/resolve), suggesting mutation, but doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that conveys the core purpose with examples. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly stating it's for updating bug status).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (mutation tool with nested parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, full parameter meanings, and usage context. For a tool that modifies bug states, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions resolution types like 'fixed/notrepro/duplicate/...', which partially explains the 'resolution' parameter's enum values, but doesn't cover 'bugId', 'resolvedBuild', 'duplicateBug', or 'comment'. With 2 parameters (including a nested object) and low coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('提交 Bug 解决动作') and specifies the resource (Bug resolution), with examples of resolution types like 'fixed/notrepro/duplicate/...' that help clarify what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'activateBug' or 'getBugDetail', which would require mentioning it's for finalizing bug status rather than viewing or activating bugs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing bug ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'activateBug' (which might change bug state differently) or 'getBugDetail' (which is read-only). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.